Almost all aspects of lifeas we know it depend
directly or indirectly on a reliable and affordable supply of energy. The alarm clocks
we wake up to, the lights we turn on, the hot water we bathe in, the foods we eat,
the cars we drive, the computers we use--all rely on the generation of massive
amounts of energy.

In the United States today, 88 percent of our energy comes from nonrenewable fossil
fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. Most of us will still be alive when--according to some current estimates--the world's oil supply starts to run out
around 2020 or 2030. By the year 2100 (when some of our generation's grandchildren
will still be around) fossil fuels will meet less than 50 percent of world energy
demand, according to one recently published analysis.

For societies under stress because of war, overpopulation, or breakdown of central
structures, the hunt for energy becomes as all-consuming as the search for food.
Haiti is practically stripped bare of trees that were burned for cooking fuel during the
political upheaval in the late 1980s. During the Bosnian war, residents burned their
furniture and anything else made of wood in homemade stoves in attempts to stay
warm during the cold winter.

So the question we face is how to best make that transition to a world less dependent
on fossil fuels. To make realistic projections, we have to consider many factors.

Each energy source has its own cost-benefit trade-offs. For example, coal is a
relatively plentiful and inexpensive energy source, although it is non-renewable,
expensive to transport, and burning it raises serious environmental concerns.
Nuclear power--which now supplies 8 percent of American energy--is the longest
lasting large-scale source using current technology, but it is expensive and has the
possibility of damaging the environment severely. Alternative sources--including
hydroelectric and geothermal power, along with wind and solar generators--pose
little environmental risk but they may not be suitable for many areas.

The federal government influences our energy choices as much as the marketplace.
Through tax incentives and regulations, the government can alter the cost-benefit
ratio of one energy source relative to another, and influence how energy research
dollars are spent. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 covers many aspects of federal policy,
including promoting of greater efficiency at all levels of society, developing
alternative energy technology, promoting increased alternative fuel use, and
providing incentives for increased production of conventional fuels and energy
technology.

World energy demands also must be taken into account. Since the Industrial
Revolution in the last century, nations have driven themselves to achieve
continuous economic growth. This drive applies not only to the developed nations
such as the United States, but to the many developing nations demanding an
increased share of the world energy supply to fuel their growth. To put this in
perspective, consider one energy source--petroleum. Only one-fifth of the world's
population today lives in the developed nations. These countries collectively
consume about two-thirds of the world petroleum supply, yet they only produce
about one-third of that supply. The demand for petroleum by both developed and
developing nations is increasing, the latter at a much greater rate due to exponential
population growth.

The long-term impact of factors such as new and improved technology,
development of renewable energy sources, environmental constraints, price, and
government policy is hard to predict. But fossil fuel supplies are non-renewable and
we will eventually deplete them. As individuals, it is sometimes difficult to feel
concern about something that will happen decades from now, but what about our
generation's children and grandchildren? They will face a problem on a global scale,
inherited from us. Choices we make now are important for the future.
Conservation of energy is probably our most potent tool as individuals. We can
decide, for example, to drive less and buy fewer energy-intensive products. If we
decrease our demand for energy on a large enough scale, we might ease the
transition away from fossil fuels, which, in turn, would buy us time to develop
satisfactory alternatives. We also can work with our local, state, and national
governments to promote conservation and alternative energy strategies. It is
difficult to predict how much these efforts will ameliorate the potential for a
worldwide crisis. It is up to each one of us to decide what we are willing to do. It is
clear, however, that individual efforts, although important, are not enough.
Government and industry need to look seriously at major investments in the
development of new technology for replacement energy now--not when the decline
starts.

In this issue of Research & Creative Activity, we explore the amazing diversity of
energy research at Indiana University. We examine research on coal--its use as a
future fuel source, the preservation of old coal data by moving it into the digital age,
and the development of tools to better record information as it is gathered in the
field. For a different perspective, we also explore work on using limestone to clean
emissions from coal-fired plants. Other sources of energy, however, are not being
neglected. Indiana University researchers are collaborating on complex computer
modeling of deeply buried natural gas resources. Wind is being explored as a power
source. Scholars are also looking at the issues and consequences of our energy use,
the impact of government regulation on the utility industries, and air-pollution
control technology. We hope this issue enlightens you regarding these efforts and
that you come away with a better understanding of this complex topic that touches
all our lives.